Listen to their people! It's not a few insurgents. It's the majority of the people that want to be part of Russia.

How can we be sure? The referendum a few months ago didn't allow for the status quo, there were charges of manipulation and voter intimidation. Russia clearly had a vested interest and in all honesty backed the prior government because it was on their side.

Admittedly the West broke treaty agreements over Ukraine too. A lot of folks forgot that we agreed to never offer NATO membership to some of the former Eastern Block but have repeatedly done so. There are no saints in this. If the west's 'sin' of late had been inaction, Russia is the outright political events of the last few months. Let's be honest, if Putin wanted a peaceful resolution..the more organized of the insurgents would have been quietly asked to give an honest negotiation effort. After all who has been supplying arms and material to them?

I would just like to see a referendum that's run and organized by a 'neutral' party - the United Nations, perhaps - where voter intimidation and rigged results could be minimized. Not something run by the EU, or the United States, or Russia, or even Ukraine's current government. Someone without an agenda. (Yes, that's probably wishful thinking.)

I doubt very much at this point that Ukraine would allow for an official referendum like that, though. Just my speculation, but I don't think they'd like the results of such a vote right now.

Listen to their people! It's not a few insurgents. It's the majority of the people that want to be part of Russia.

Not according to the person I know who lives in Dontesk. He doesn't necessarily like all of what the government has done, but he prefers them over Russia and he is glad the government is taking action to try and bring those oblasts under control rather than let the separatists (whom seem to be different groups with different motives and goals rather than a unified group with one motive and goal) run rampant and do what they want.

But to turn the question around, if parts of Russia wanted to leave it and agitated to secede, what do you think Russia would do? I can tell you what it would do. Crush the separatists like bugs. The Russian government wouldn't allow any region, state or city secede from it without a lot of bloodshed and military defeats. So I ask you, what do you think Russia should do in a situation where some of the population is agitating secession?

How can we be sure? The referendum a few months ago didn't allow for the status quo, there were charges of manipulation and voter intimidation. Russia clearly had a vested interest and in all honesty backed the prior government because it was on their side.

Admittedly the West broke treaty agreements over Ukraine too. A lot of folks forgot that we agreed to never offer NATO membership to some of the former Eastern Block but have repeatedly done so. There are no saints in this. If the west's 'sin' of late had been inaction, Russia is the outright political events of the last few months. Let's be honest, if Putin wanted a peaceful resolution..the more organized of the insurgents would have been quietly asked to give an honest negotiation effort. After all who has been supplying arms and material to them?

But to turn the question around, if parts of Russia wanted to leave it and agitated to secede, what do you think Russia would do? I can tell you what it would do. Crush the separatists like bugs. The Russian government wouldn't allow any region, state or city secede from it without a lot of bloodshed and military defeats. So I ask you, what do you think Russia should do in a situation where some of the population is agitating secession?

Read up on Chechnya, Dagestan, Tatarstan, Karelia, etc, etc, they all wanted to split away from Russia or wanted more independance. Instead, they've been given more and more autonomy within Russia.

There's no point in bloodshed if you can give them what they want. I know some countries and people think otherwise but really, diplomacy gets you a lot further than pointless bloodshed.

If what you said was true, how come Chechnya is still on the map? If what you said was true, it would be completely in ruins by now. As would Dagestan, yet they are thriving. Check your facts.

That's true to a point, but have any of them been allowed to leave Russia? If any of those nations wanted to leave Russia, secede to form their own small nation, or the areas bordering China wanted to leave Russia and join China (much like the ethnic Russians of the Crimean voted to secede and join Russia), do you really think Russia would allow that? Chechnya.. if I remember right (will check the wiki after I get back from cutting hay) did suffer a fair amount of damage and conflict from Russia when it wanted to secede.

My point is, what are the odds Russia would let any of its territories secede completely from it? Perhaps the people in it don't want to be a part of Russia anymore, they want to make their own destiny, more autonomy in the Russian federation isn't to their liking, they want complete independence, do you think Russia would allow that? I don't. I think Russia would try to crush the movement like a bug with troops and assassinations since releasing territory has never really been a part of the Russian character for a very long time.

Ok. I checked the Wikipedia article on Chechnya and it pretty much confirmed what I thought it did. That Russia did and always has refused to acknowledge Chechnya's right to secede and it fought several destructive wars to prevent it. The end result is Chechnya is still a part of the Russian Federation and isn't currently looking to secede and become it's own independent republic.

That's true to a point, but have any of them been allowed to leave Russia? If any of those nations wanted to leave Russia, secede to form their own small nation, or the areas bordering China wanted to leave Russia and join China (much like the ethnic Russians of the Crimean voted to secede and join Russia), do you really think Russia would allow that? Chechnya.. if I remember right (will check the wiki after I get back from cutting hay) did suffer a fair amount of damage and conflict from Russia when it wanted to secede.

My point is, what are the odds Russia would let any of its territories secede completely from it? Perhaps the people in it don't want to be a part of Russia anymore, they want to make their own destiny, more autonomy in the Russian federation isn't to their liking, they want complete independence, do you think Russia would allow that? I don't. I think Russia would try to crush the movement like a bug with troops and assassinations since releasing territory has never really been a part of the Russian character for a very long time.

Ok. I checked the Wikipedia article on Chechnya and it pretty much confirmed what I thought it did. That Russia did and always has refused to acknowledge Chechnya's right to secede and it fought several destructive wars to prevent it. The end result is Chechnya is still a part of the Russian Federation and isn't currently looking to secede and become it's own independent republic.

Chechnya perhaps isn't the best example. They're just criminals and scum. The point I was trying to make is that Ukraine could give those province(s) in the east the same status as the Republics within Russia. It would probably keep them happy because they are autonomous enough and Kiev would be happy because it's still the same country. I think much of the reason why these people want to join Russia is the way the west interfered and the way Kiev handled the situation. They've lost faith in their government.

I'm the first to admit that they will likely never join Russia, no matter if they want it. NATO simply wouldn't allow it. So the only solution in my book is to give them the autonomy they want.

Chechnya perhaps isn't the best example. They're just criminals and scum. The point I was trying to make is that Ukraine could give those province(s) in the east the same status as the Republics within Russia. It would probably keep them happy because they are autonomous enough and Kiev would be happy because it's still the same country. I think much of the reason why these people want to join Russia is the way the west interfered and the way Kiev handled the situation. They've lost faith in their government.

I'm the first to admit that they will likely never join Russia, no matter if they want it. NATO simply wouldn't allow it. So the only solution in my book is to give them the autonomy they want.

The problem is.. they don't want autonomy.. they haven't asked for it have they? They refuse to come to the negotiation table to discuss it as an option. They are set on withdrawing from the country altogether and becoming part of Russia. There has to be some give on both sides..and I see little to none on either side of the divide. There were some SERIOUS issues that lead to the change of government and clearly there still is in other ways.

We got folks on BOTH sides pointing fingers at the other side for the atrocities that led to the fall of the LAST government.

The problem is..the person who could be incentivise BOTH sides to sit down and discuss things clearly has NO reason to tell them to. Putin can only benefit from letting civil unrest to continue and no one else has the poltical capital in the area to be truly effective.

Chechnya perhaps isn't the best example. They're just criminals and scum. The point I was trying to make is that Ukraine could give those province(s) in the east the same status as the Republics within Russia. It would probably keep them happy because they are autonomous enough and Kiev would be happy because it's still the same country. I think much of the reason why these people want to join Russia is the way the west interfered and the way Kiev handled the situation. They've lost faith in their government.

I'm the first to admit that they will likely never join Russia, no matter if they want it. NATO simply wouldn't allow it. So the only solution in my book is to give them the autonomy they want.

Wow.. Wow. There are so many assumptions and way broad brush generalizing in this statement. Underlining is mine. They all criminals and scum for wanting to leave Russia? Why does that make them criminals and scum? That's a very broad brush to paint with, to call people who want nothing to do with Russia criminals and scum. I'm sure there are some criminals and what many would call scum in those who wanted to leave, but I'd say most were decent people wanting nothing more to do with Russia. If you go painting with a broad brush again, think of how it can be used against you. ie Russians are vodka swilling alcoholics who prefer KGB thugs and murderers leading them and wish a return to the glory days of totalitarian control for the great Soviet Union of Thugs and Goons. Do you find that kind of offensive? Is that accurate? No. There are some Russians who are that, but they are a small minority and not the majority by any means, so please be aware of how you are portraying possible prejudices.

It's possible that it's not necessarily for reasons the west was interfering (Russia was interfering just as much), but it seems like the majority have separatists that want to flat out -leave- Ukraine and join Russia. Even if they aren't the majority. There's always one way they can join Russia. Pick up their feet and move there. That's always an option and should be used if they want to be a part of Russia so badly. Much like those people in Alaska that wanted to take Alaska back to Russia (they had a petition up and everything, but in 4 days it only got about 17,000 signatures. Clearly if those people want to be a part of Russia, they can move there rather than having the entire state secede (which the vast majority of the population would very much oppose). And thankfully Russia has no claim to the state. It gave up all claims in-perpetuity when it sold it to the US.

How would NATO stop it? NATO isn't some large all powerful government. It couldn't stop any nation from joining Russia voluntarily. It might protest such joining, but couldn't stop it as long as there was no strong arming or use of force to make them join Russia.

When does the world wake up and does something about the situation there. Haven't there been enough innocent casualties? Everybody who caused the unrest in Ukraine, everybody now has blood on their hands. I hope they can't sleep at night.

*edit*

There is of course a small possibility that it was indeed an accident. Three different news sites, from three different countries claim it's shot down however. But if it was cruising at 37.000 feet, ground missiles can't have reached it.

AN-26 airplane was shot down near Torez, it fell somewhere behind the mine "Progress".We warned - do not fly in "our sky".And here is the video proof of another "bird-fall" (bird = slang for an airplane).Another bird fell behind the spoil tip, residential areas were not affected.No civilians were harmed.

AN-26 airplane was shot down near Torez, it fell somewhere behind the mine "Progress".We warned - do not fly in "our sky".And here is the video proof of another "bird-fall" (bird = slang for an airplane).Another bird fell behind the spoil tip, residential areas were not affected.No civilians were harmed.

This is completely unrelated? The plane I'm talking about is a civilian Boeing 777 from Malaysian Airlines, not a military Antonov.

If the plane was at 37,000 feet I'd be surprised if they had anything other than a radar return. That being said, I'm not familiar enough with that kind of military hardware to do more than make guesses.

While it wanders close enough to victim-blaming for me to be uneasy about it, someone from Malaysia Airlines and/or Amsterdam Schiphol's ATC better go to jail over this, or at least lose their job. It's quite literally criminal negligence to not be re-routing civilian airlines around an active war zone, precisely because this kind of thing might happen.

I've looked into flights going through Kuala Lumpur to visit Australia before. This is a flight path I would (and possibly have) considered, as a lot of flights no longer go through Singapore since Qantas paired up with Emirates (and go through the Middle East instead).

I find it strange that they would have the technology to fire a missile successfully at this plane and down it, but they claim not to have been able to successfully identify the plane they're shooting down.

I'd like to know where the hell did those <insert insult of choice> rebels/separatists get missiles capable of shooting something down at 37,000 feet anyways. Considering who it looks like did shoot it down, it looks like it would have been Russian equipment. This doesn't look that good for Russian PR if something they gave the separatists was used to shoot down a civilian plane. It's not making the separatists look good either. This is going to damage any good PR they have with a good number of people.

Whoever did it, I hope they find them and tie them over the barrel of a cannon before firing it. This incident should not have happened.

I'd like to know where the hell did those <insert insult of choice> rebels/separatists get missiles capable of shooting something down at 37,000 feet anyways. Considering who it looks like did shoot it down, it looks like it would have been Russian equipment. This doesn't look that good for Russian PR if something they gave the separatists was used to shoot down a civilian plane. It's not making the separatists look good either. This is going to damage any good PR they have with a good number of people.

Whoever did it, I hope they find them and tie them over the barrel of a cannon before firing it. This incident should not have happened.

We don't usually agree but on this we do :) The Russian equipment could come from anywhere though. Most of the Ukranian army also uses Russian hardware so technically it could come from both sides. But I hope they find whoever is responsible for this and take appropriate matters.

@TheGlyphstone... Dutch ATC have no role in this. They cleared the plane according to their flight plan. Malaysian Airlines saw no reason to change the route. Flying around Ukraine is a rather big detour and with the range, conditions and passengers, the airplane might not be able to fly the distance with the extra miles. Also it's not for airline to decide whether or not it's safe to fly. Whoever controls the European skies, in other word, the European FAA, should have decided whether or not it was safe. If anybody not involved in the war was to blame for this, it's them. There was a KLM 747 10 minutes behind the Malaysian Airlines and that got diverted by Ukrainian Air Traffic Control and the airspace over that part of Ukraine got closed.

While it wanders close enough to victim-blaming for me to be uneasy about it, someone from Malaysia Airlines and/or Amsterdam Schiphol's ATC better go to jail over this, or at least lose their job. It's quite literally criminal negligence to not be re-routing civilian airlines around an active war zone, precisely because this kind of thing might happen.

Agree! These days airlines and flight controls routinely reset the paths of planes to keep them away from volcanoes in eruption - drifting volcanic ash clouds (as opposed to flying straight over the erupting cone) weren't even recognized as a risk to aircraft until the 1980s. Sending a passenger plane, and especially a large jet liner, within perhaps 200 miles (or less?) of an active war zone with unpredictable people and frayed relations is madness.